From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,XPRIO autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c1983ae2deb642ab,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-24 19:47:53 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn1feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.204!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Steve Doiel" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Ada -vs- GNAT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.225.227.101 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net 1022294872 12.225.227.101 (Sat, 25 May 2002 02:47:52 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 02:47:52 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 02:47:52 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24711 Date: 2002-05-25T02:47:52+00:00 List-Id: I've been using Ada for a several years now. In my opinion one of the greatest strengths of the language is in its portability. I find it reassuring that different vendors distribute the same reference manual for the language. Recently I did some work with XML/Ada and found a few pieces code dependent on the GNAT specific attributes 'img and 'unrestricted_access. I was able to make the code work with ObjectAda (and any other Ada compiler) by making a few small changes to the sources. Personally I find the introduction of attributes and pragmas that are not essential to be undesirable. In a recent thread on the gcc mailing list, Robert Dewar describes how ACT introduced the pragma "Unreferened" such that code that previously appeared as: pragma Warnings (Off, entitiy) could be replaced by pragma Unreferenced (entity) because the latter is "neater, reads better, and is clearer why it is there." In the GCC context this type of change requires that GCC 3.2 be built with GCC 3.1 and no earlier version. In my opinion these extensions should only be added by revision to the standard or as work-arounds when you come up against a brick wall. Since I am not currently a supported customer of ACT, I have no grounds to complain, but am interested in what other people think. SteveD